Author
Topic: EF 24-70 f2.8L II Shutter Speeds (Read 2630 times)

Long ago, before IS lenses, I developed good habits for holding a 35 steady. I had too, since I was always pushing the limits of ASA 400 Tri-X and using relatively slow shutter speeds for candids. But, with a DSLR, I've grown quite accustomed to using IS lenses. For the past two years, the 70-200 f2.8 II has been my most used lens, supplemented by the 24-105 f4 during the past year. Both are used on 5D3 bodies.

With last week's sales and rebate, I took the plunge and ordered the 24-70 2.8 II. It arrived today. So, the first thing that I try is comparing it with the 24-105, both at 70mm and taking shots at a wall calendar -- my makeshift test chart. To my surprise, I'm not as steady as I thought I was. With the 24-70, it was a challenge to hold the center focus point steady against intersecting lines on the calendar. It seemed clear that I've been spoiled by IS.

For hand-held, non-IS shots, I've always adopted the minimum shutter speed = inverse focal length rule of thumb. At 1/80 second (and 70mm), most test shots were sharp, but it wasn't consistent. Some shots were blurry. In contrast, the 24-105 at 70mm and 1/40 with IS on was more consistently sharp. (To be fair, a few of the sharp images from the 24-70 were sharper than any of those from the 24-105).

Shooting candids and sports with shutter speeds of 1/200 and up was a key motivation for the purchase -- plus, I'm looking forward to its renowned IQ. But, I have a question. For those who own this lens, what's your most comfortable hand-held slow shutter speed at 70mm (assuming a sufficiently stable subject)?

I think this really depends on the person - and your desire to risk getting a blurry shot. I would agree with Neuro that 1/125s is safe, but like Dylan says, you can shoot slower if you're willing to take a chance. I've gotten sharp shots at 1/30s, but that's too slow for people (1/60s is really as slow as you want to go) and the keeper rate is much lower.

The 1/FL 'rule' should be 1/2xFL or more for today's higher resolution digital sensors (and higher still for crop sensors).

Personally, I use a minimum shutter speed setting of 1/125 s.

Beat me to it. We routinely view images from DSLR's at high magnification, and can easily detect any flaws in the image. I've scanned a lot of old photos, and find that they are not as sharp as modern DSLR's, even though they were sharp for their day.

I think that the answer to this question is, are you going to print it to a normal size, print to a massive size, export to social media, or pixel peep?

Generally, the 1/x focal length rule for shutter speed does still hold true for getting a sharp picture. Does that mean it will be the *sharpest* picture? Maybe, maybe not - it depends how steady you are. The higher you set shutter speed, the less chance you will have with sharpness issues (instead you will have increasing light/noise/color issues as ISO would likely need be raised). Image stabilization helps, but does not solve the problem - you still can get camera shake with image stabilization, and if you don't let it "set" before shooting you can even get blur from the image stabilization unit not being ready.

The real question is, what is the final destination of the picture? If it is the typical 13x19" or smaller print, or the destination will be a JPG on a social media site, then by all means use the 1/x rule as the extra detail gained by a higher shutter speed would likely not be exposed in these final exports and you would benefit from the lower ISOs more.

However, if you final export is a print much larger than 13x19". or you/your client will be digitally displaying it in a way where pixel-level detail is very important, then neuro's 1/(2*x) will give you that extra detail. Just be careful as if you are in a low light situation, the noise introduced by higher ISOs required for 1/125 will likely cause more damage to the print than a loss of pixel-level detail at 1/60 would (assuming decent technique used).

Finally, as others mentioned, if you are taking pictures of anything moving I would start at 1/100 at a very minimum and move up if a faster speed shutter is required depending on the speed of the motion. Anything below 1/100 with a moving subject and you will likely lose detail to motion blur, nevermind camera shake.

I have noticed the same thing over the last several years. Back in my 35mm film days, I was proud of what slow shutter speeds I could get a way with. Now I have to keep my shutter speed at 2X the focal length or faster.

I suppose some of this is attributable to age, but I agree with others that we are expecting a lot more sharpness from our modern digital cameras and lenses.

I have noticed the same thing over the last several years. Back in my 35mm film days, I was proud of what slow shutter speeds I could get a way with. Now I have to keep my shutter speed at 2X the focal length or faster.

I suppose some of this is attributable to age, but I agree with others that we are expecting a lot more sharpness from our modern digital cameras and lenses.

Expectations and image size, we have bigger screens than we normally printed so we are much more demanding now. But it can be counter productive, anybody that doubts that then take a look at a Steve McCurry print exhibition, which I have, several times, I also have all his books and it can be seen in them too.

Too often we lose sight of the fact that photography is about capturing light, if we have the ability to take control of that light then we grow exponentially as photographers. More often than not the image is not about lens speed, sensor size, MP's or AF, it is about the light.

I have noticed the same thing over the last several years. Back in my 35mm film days, I was proud of what slow shutter speeds I could get a way with. Now I have to keep my shutter speed at 2X the focal length or faster.

I suppose some of this is attributable to age, but I agree with others that we are expecting a lot more sharpness from our modern digital cameras and lenses.

Expectations and image size, we have bigger screens than we normally printed so we are much more demanding now. But it can be counter productive, anybody that doubts that then take a look at a Steve McCurry print exhibition, which I have, several times, I also have all his books and it can be seen in them too.

Thanks for the link - I'm a big fan of Steve McCurry and whatever his work may lack in sharpness, he more than makes up for with his composition, color, and emotion. He's also given me the highlight of my Instagram use since getting on there a few months back

Too often we lose sight of the fact that photography is about capturing light, if we have the ability to take control of that light then we grow exponentially as photographers. More often than not the image is not about lens speed, sensor size, MP's or AF, it is about the light.

Expectations and image size, we have bigger screens than we normally printed so we are much more demanding now. But it can be counter productive, anybody that doubts that then take a look at a Steve McCurry print exhibition, which I have, several times, I also have all his books and it can be seen in them too.